Re: Minimalist alphabet

On Sunday, August 15, 2004, at 03:04 , Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:

> Actually it would make more sense to use PTK for
> /b d g/ and PH TH KH for /p t k/, TSH and TZH for
> /tS dZ/.
Yep. When I read the "minimalist alphabet" proposal, I thought it'd make
more sense to have BH DH and GH for English /p t k/ (retaining BDG for /b
d g/) - but that's essentially the same as your suggestion. Of course,
after S, the H following the plosive, however it's written, is then
redundant and should not be used, e.g.
pat --> BHAT/ PHAT
bat --> BAT/PAT
spat --> SBAT/SPAT

I don't like the double use of H to show devoicing+aspiration, as well as
using it in the combos SH = /S/ and ZH = /Z/. All that's need is one
symbol, either C or J. Let's assume C, and the use of Philip's PTK, we'd
then have:
C = /Z/
CH = /S/
TC = /dZ/
TCH = /tS/

>  But what's the point of the whole exercise?
Well, yes - that was precisely my reaction. IMO English require more than
the paltry 26 letters of our modern Roman alphabet, not less of them.

> Texts will get much longer, bitwise, paperwise and
> inkwise.
I agree.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply